Maybe you should read the book first before dismissing it. It's not that expensive

Quote:

Originally Posted by albie

>>Piri Reis map

It isn't even that accurate. The experts can't even agree about what land mass it shows. That's how unaccurate it is. I think you underestimate the abilities of ancient man.

[....]

What about the Antarctic coastline? Not only wasn't Antarctica discovered for about 3 centuries, the coastline seems to match the coastline UNDERNEATH the ice.

Piri Reis used different sources for his map and the accuracy of some parts and inaccuracy of others can be explained by this.

>> How do you explain the presence of statues with negroid features in pre-Columbian South-America and the presence of coca traces in Egyptian mummies?

Quote:

Originally Posted by albie

Boats. Obviously people travelled around much more than is recorded. Not evidence for anything.

Still.... according to official historiography, no African had ever set foot in South-America at that time and the vikings had been the only "Old World" inhabitants to ever set foot in the Americas (and only a handful of times). So whoes boats were they?!? How did negroes get to South-America and coca extracts to Egypt?

Prove that block of aluminium was actually found in that hole. Prove it didn't slip in recently, during the excavation. Prove that place hadn't been dug up before and the item lost there recently. Prove that the oxidisation couldn't have happened in a short time period. Prove it wasn't a fake. There's no real proof of how old it is or where it was found.

>>Maybe you should read the book first before dismissing it. It's not that expensive

Did you read the criticism of the book and the rest of the stuff I provided? I bet not. Have you spent a second trying to debunk all the things you hold to be true. I bet not.

>>Still.... according to official historiography, no African had ever set foot in South-America at that time and the vikings had been the only "Old World" inhabitants to ever set foot in the Americas (and only a handful of times). So whoes boats were they?!? How did negroes get to South-America and coca extracts to Egypt?

Do you think maybe they WALKED? the land masses are connected, and even more so in the distant past. They could still have used boats. What's to stop them? your dim view of black people?

You haven't provided one iota of real reliable evidence. I wonder why you still believe. Maybe I just have higher standards. You should use your little grey cells and see where I'm coming from.

Archaeological hoaxes spur history text rethink
Six publishers of high school history textbooks are considering revising entries in their books about Japan's earliest stoneware, following Sunday's disclosure that a leading archaeologist had fabricated his discoveries of such artifacts.

The textbooks contain descriptions of stoneware unearthed at the Kamitakamori ruins in Tsukidate, Miyagi Prefecture, purportedly dating back as far as 700,000 years.

Shinichi Fujimura, 50, who served as deputy director of the Tohoku Paleolithic Institute, admitted Sunday that he buried stoneware in late October to make up the finds at the Kamitakamori ruins. He also said he similarly planted stoneware at the Soshinfudozaka ruins in Shintotsukawa, Hokkaido, in September.

They used skills that DIED OUT. We could easily relearn them and replicate them today.

Just like we could easily learn space travel, I guess.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by albie

Not evidence.

The Egyptian, Tolmec and Roman structures are evidence of highly advanced stone building skills (no more, no less). Interesting is also that some of these advanced techniques (eg. binding huge blocks by means of metal pieces moulded on the spot) were used both in pre-Columbian South-America and in the "New World", which might suggest a mutual influence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by albie

Prove that block of aluminium was actually found in that hole. Prove it didn't slip in recently, during the excavation. Prove that place hadn't been dug up before and the item lost there recently. Prove that the oxidisation couldn't have happened in a short time period. Prove it wasn't a fake. There's no real proof of how old it is or where it was found.

What would constitute as proof in your opinion?

>>Maybe you should read the book first before dismissing it. It's not that expensive

Quote:

Originally Posted by albie

Did you read the criticism of the book and the rest of the stuff I provided? I bet not.

Only very superficially. I haven't had the time yet to go through everything yet as I also have a life to manage....

Anyway, criticism of a source is pointless without checking at least relevant excerpts of the source itself or criticism of the critic ("debunkers of the debunkers"). It is very easy and common to misrepresent oposing views by means of quote-mining and other techniques.

Quote:

Originally Posted by albie

Have you spent a second trying to debunk all the things you hold to be true. I bet not.

I always spend many hours checking out sources from as many perspectives as possible before I make up my mind about something. I never limit myself to just one POV.

Quote:

Originally Posted by albie

Do you think maybe they WALKED? the land masses are connected, and even more so in the distant past. They could still have used boats. What's to stop them? your dim view of black people?

It doesn't matter HOW they got from one place to the other. What matters, is that official historiography claims they DIDN'T (which shows that official historiography is wrong in this critical area). How hard is that to understand with that thick skull of yours?

Also, Africa and Europe were NEVER connected to South-America (at least not since man walks on this planet). There is also no evidence of any negroid culture ever making boats that remotely allowed inter-continental travels and also among other cultures there was only very little technology capable of intercontinental travel at a regular basis that we know of (which is why official historiography says is was pretty much non-existant).

Quote:

Originally Posted by albie

You haven't provided one iota of real reliable evidence. I wonder why you still believe. Maybe I just have higher standards.

You prefer to ignore anomalies, whereas I try to find a logical explanation. That's where we differ.

It doesn't matter HOW they got from one place to the other. What matters, is that official historiography claims they DIDN'T (which shows that official historiography is wrong in this critical area). How hard is that to understand with that thick skull of yours?

OMG. Jumping to conclusions they call it. Bullshit, I call it. Just because something doesn't tally with what is presently known does not mean aliens had anything to do with it. Christ! Who makes a leap like that? I thought you were smart.

You are basically doing this:

"Oh! I thought I had more money than that in my bank account! The Aliens must have took it!"

It is now accepted that Columbus did not discover America. There is evidence of many other people getting there first, chiefly the American Indians! I suppose they flew there, did they?

There is nothing supernatural about people getting in boats and crossing large oceans. Get a grip.